As a highly urbanized international metropolis, Hong Kong’s management policy for community dogs has long been trapped in an inertial cycle of “capture and kill.” This outdated model, reliant on removal and destruction, is not only ethically questionable, but its long-term “effectiveness” in controlling population numbers has been widely proven internationally to be a failure. This approach, led by the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department (AFCD), reduces living beings to “problem numbers” to be processed, creating a sharp opposition with Hong Kong society’s increasingly mature awareness of animal welfare. Faced with public calls for reform and advances in animal protection philosophy, the HKSPCA Research Department believes we stand at a historic policy crossroads. It is time to thoroughly examine the fundamental flaws of the current policy and seriously explore humane management alternatives centered on “Trap-Neuter-Return” (TNR) programs, seeking a new path for animal management in Hong Kong that combines science, humanity, and long-term benefit.

In this international metropolis of Hong Kong, we daily enjoy an abundance of meat, yet seldom pause to consider where the food on our plates comes from, or what kind of life the animals endured before becoming our meal. The living conditions and final moments of farm animals—particularly pigs and poultry, which constitute the bulk of local consumption—have long existed in the dual shadows of public invisibility and legal neglect. In 2010, the University of Hong Kong published a landmark Review of Animal Welfare Legislation in Hong Kong report. It pointedly states that Hong Kong’s animal welfare legal framework, centred on the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Ordinance (Cap. 169), has seen no fundamental update since its enactment in 1935 and is severely “outdated and fragmented, difficult to locate and to understand, and therefore difficult to enforce.” More critically, this antiquated law was designed solely to punish extreme acts of “cruelty,” leaving a regulatory vacuum concerning the basic welfare of ‘food-producing’ animals during rearing, transport, and slaughter. This means the animal group which is most numerous and most integral to the human food supply is paradoxically the most vulnerable and unprotected in law. An Outdated Legal Framework and the Absurd Reality of Selective Protection The core problem with Hong Kong’s current animal welfare legislation lies in its philosophy, which remains rooted in the early 20th century. Compared to jurisdictions like the United Kingdom and Australia, which have shifted their legal focus from “preventing cruelty” to “positively promoting animal welfare,” Hong Kong’s law appears exceptionally passive and backward. The design of the current Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Ordinance functions like an alarm that only sounds after a disaster; the law can only intervene once an animal has endured “unnecessary suffering” reaching the threshold of “cruelty.” However, it is virtually powerless against the chronic, systemic welfare issues farm animals face throughout their lives in intensive systems—such as severe space restrictions, an inability to express natural behaviours, and the immense fear and stress prior to slaughter. This legal stagnation has led to an absurd reality of “selective protection.” While the ordinance theoretically covers all animals, enforcement focus and societal concern are overwhelmingly directed towards companion animals (cats and dogs). Meanwhile, pigs and poultry, which constitute the vast majority of Hong Kong’s meat consumption, lack a set of species-specific, legally enforceable welfare standards governing their entire lifecycle from birth, rearing, and transport to slaughter. The “Five Freedoms” principles long advocated by the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE)—freedom from hunger and thirst; from discomfort; from pain, injury, and disease; to express normal behaviour; and from fear and distress—are far from being a mandatory legal baseline in Hong Kong’s farms and slaughterhouses. Consequently, the welfare of food-producing animals largely depends on industry self-regulation and commercial considerations, not on binding legal requirements. The Slaughterhouse: The Last Line of Defence for Welfare, Dangerously Breached The slaughter process is the final stage of an animal’s life and should be governed by the primary principle of minimising suffering, i.e., practising “humane slaughter.” Yet, in the absence of clear legal standards and effective oversight, this last line of defence is easily compromised. The core of humane slaughter lies in effective stunning technology that renders an animal instantly insensible, thereby preventing it from experiencing pain and fear during subsequent bleeding and processing. International scientific consensus and practice confirm that inhumane slaughter methods are not only profoundly cruel but also affect meat quality due to substances like adrenaline released during extreme fear and stress. Although the 2010 University of Hong Kong report identified slaughterhouse animal welfare as a key area for review, the public knows very little about actual operations inside these facilities. Historical experience shows that reform of slaughter methods often faces industry opposition citing operational inconvenience and increased costs. However, a civilised society cannot prioritise commercial convenience over the fundamental moral responsibility to alleviate animal suffering. Ensuring that every animal sent for slaughter ends its life with minimal fear and pain is an inescapable part of a modern food production chain. As an advanced city, Hong Kong’s slaughter standards must not remain at a level set decades ago but must align with internationally recognised animal welfare science. Policy Reform Recommendations: Building a Comprehensive Welfare Safeguard System for Food-Producing Animals Faced with legal voids and practical challenges, piecemeal criticism is futile. We need a systematic, forward-looking policy reform plan. To this end, the HKSPCA Research Department proposes the following key recommendations: First, dedicated legislation must be initiated to establish a “positive duty of care.” Hong Kong should draw on the legislative reform experiences of advanced overseas regions to begin drafting a local Food-Producing Animal Welfare Ordinance, or undertake a fundamental revision of the existing Cap. 169. The core of this legal reform must be the introduction of a “duty of care” concept. This means the law would require all persons responsible for animals (including farm operators, transporters, and slaughterhouse operators) to take positive, reasonable measures to ensure the welfare needs of animals in their care are met, rather than passively punishing cruelty after it occurs. This statutory duty should explicitly cover all stages of the animal’s life, from on-farm housing and transport conditions to pre-slaughter handling and stunning procedures. Second, develop and mandatorily enforce a Code of Practice for the Rearing, Transport, and Slaughter of Food-Producing Animals. The new legal framework must be supported by concrete, operable technical standards. The government should convene animal scientists, veterinarians, welfare experts, and industry representatives to develop a detailed Code of Practice for major food-producing species like pigs and poultry, based on OIE standards and the Five Freedoms. The Code’s content must include: minimum space and environmental enrichment requirements for all growth stages; maximum journey times and welfare conditions during transport; rules for pre-slaughter rest and handling methods; and the mandatory use of scientifically verified humane stunning equipment and techniques that cause instant unconsciousness. This Code should carry legal force and serve as the basis for enforcement and industry compliance. Finally, establish an

In Hong Kong, a highly urbanised society, animal welfare issues are increasingly coming under scrutiny, with incidents of animal cruelty and irresponsible abandonment occurring frequently. However, the current “Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Ordinance” focuses on post-facto punishment, acting as a last line of defence that is always too late. To fundamentally nurture a society culture that respects life, we must turn our attention to a more proactive and formative area—school education. Systematically integrating animal life education into the formal curriculum of Hong Kong’s schools is not only a response to the call for public education in the 2010 “Review of Animal Welfare Legislation,” but also a crucial step towards optimising animal welfare policy in Hong Kong. Conclusion The law can punish wrongdoing, but only education can prevent its occurrence and plant the seeds of goodness in people’s hearts. The optimisation of Hong Kong’s animal welfare policy cannot rely solely on revising legal penalties; it must also invest in shaping the values of the next generation. Integrating animal life education into the formal curriculum is a forward-looking social investment. It invests in a more empathetic next generation, a more harmonious relationship between humans and animals, and a future for Hong Kong that is truly civilised and compassionate. We urge the government and the education sector to seize the reform opportunity following the 2010 legislative review, grounding it in education to build the most solid and lasting foundation for Hong Kong’s animal welfare efforts. The seeds sown now will bloom into virtues of respect for life in the future.

Hong Kong society often prides itself on being an animal-loving, civilised city. Yet, in the darker corners of our metropolis, an animal welfare crisis enabled by outdated laws plays out daily. The core of Hong Kong’s animal welfare legislation—the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Ordinance (Cap. 169)—is rooted in principles dating back to 1935. Nearly seventy-five years on, this law proves utterly inadequate in the face of today’s highly commercialised, yet poorly regulated, pet breeding and trade industry. The 2010 Review of Animal Welfare Legislation in Hong Kong report from the University of Hong Kong clearly states that the current legislation can only react to overt acts of “cruelty,” being completely incapable of preventing widespread neglect and systemic exploitation. More shockingly, data cited in the report revealed that at the time, there were only two licensed dog breeders in the entire territory of Hong Kong. This figure stands in absurd contrast to the vast supply of pets on the market, exposing that the overwhelming majority of pet breeding occurs in the grey area of “unlicensed” or “hobbyist” operations. These so-called “backyard breeders” often operate with profit as their sole motive, keeping animals in deplorable living conditions, ignoring their basic physiological and behavioural needs, and mass-producing animals with genetic disorders or behavioural issues. The current legislation is virtually powerless against this. Fatal Flaws in Industry Regulation: Systemic Failure Across the Entire Supply Chain At the sales stage, an outdated and ineffective licensing system prevails. Under the Public Health (Animals and Birds) Regulations, pet shops require a licence to sell animals. However, the licensing conditions are severely antiquated, focusing primarily on hygiene and facility size, while remaining silent on crucial requirements such as animal welfare standards, staff training in animal care knowledge, and medical safeguards for sick animals. Even more absurdly, even if a shop owner is convicted of animal cruelty, the Director of Food and Environmental Hygiene has no authority to revoke the pet shop licence as a result. This means a convicted animal abuser can legally continue to run a pet business—a loophole that makes a mockery of the rule of law. At the consumer end, ignorance and impulse buying create a vicious cycle. A lack of mandatory pre-sale information disclosure means consumers often unknowingly purchase puppies or kittens from cruel breeding operations, animals that may already have inherent health or behavioural problems. This not only condemns the animal to a lifetime of potential suffering but also leads to tragedies of abandonment due to behavioural issues, exacerbating the stray animal problem. Opinion polls indicate that the vast majority of Hong Kong citizens support implementing ethical policies in pet shops to safeguard animal welfare, highlighting the vast chasm between public expectation and policy stagnation. A Roadmap for Policy Optimisation: Towards a Responsible Pet Supply Chain To address these flaws, the Research Department of the HKSPCA proposes the following concrete and actionable policy recommendations aimed at building a regulatory system that safeguards animal welfare from the source. First, a comprehensive mandatory licensing and regulatory system must be established. Legislation should require all commercial animal breeders, regardless of scale, to obtain a licence from the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department (AFCD). Applicants must pass an animal welfare knowledge test, and their premises must meet statutory minimum standards for space, environmental enrichment, and veterinary care. Concurrently, a mandatory “Breeder-to-Home” animal identification and registration system should be implemented. All dogs and cats sold must be microchipped, with the breeder’s licence number recorded in the registration details, ensuring traceability and enabling consumers to make informed choices. Second, it is essential to develop and enforce a Code of Practice for the Commercial Breeding and Sale of Animals Informed by international animal welfare science, this should be a legally enforceable, localised operational code. It must explicitly define welfare limits for breeding animals, ensuring adequate rest periods; stipulate a minimum weaning age for offspring, prohibiting premature separation from the mother; and require necessary socialisation training and appropriate environmental stimulation for young animals. Third, the pet sales licensing regime must be reformed to empower enforcement. The Public Health (Animals and Birds) Regulations should be amended to explicitly incorporate animal welfare standards into pet shop licensing conditions. The licensing authority must be empowered to refuse or revoke a licence if the owner or staff commit acts of animal cruelty or repeatedly violate welfare provisions. Pet shops should be mandated to provide purchasers with a veterinary health certificate, vaccination records, and detailed care guidelines. Finally, public education and enforcement resources must be strengthened. The government should fund sustained public education campaigns promoting “Responsible Pet Ownership” and “Adopt Don’t Shop,” while educating the public on identifying responsible breeders. Increased resources, specialised training, and effective inspection and complaint-handling mechanisms must be provided to the AFCD and relevant enforcement agencies to ensure new laws do not become mere paper tigers. Conclusion: Enacting Legislation that Reflects Our Civilised Values Reforming the pet breeding and trade is not about penalising legitimate businesses, but about eradicating the breeding grounds for cruel exploitation and establishing a fair, humane, and sustainable industry. As an international city, Hong Kong’s animal welfare laws lag far behind jurisdictions like the UK and Taiwan. In 2006, the UK passed the landmark Animal Welfare Act, explicitly introducing the concept of an animal’s “welfare needs”; Taiwan’s Animal Protection Act has also been amended multiple times, imposing strict controls on breeding and sale practices. Hong Kong must not remain stagnant. We urge the SAR Government to confront this pressing animal welfare and public policy issue and immediately initiate a comprehensive review and amendment of the relevant legislation. We also call on all citizens to leverage their power as consumers to make ethical choices: support breeders and retailers who are open, transparent, and prioritise animal welfare, and give priority to adopting from animal rescue organisations. Only through a tripartite approach of forward-looking legislation, stringent enforcement, and deep-rooted civic education can we end the silent suffering hidden behind cage bars and truly build a compassionate Hong Kong that